With all respect, I think you undermine your case when you claim support from sources that clearly do not refer to your theory's predictions, and in a non-trivial sense, contradict them.
The Maeda et al paper on the non-dispersing wave packets of the Bohr atom does not describe a natural guiding wave that determines particle position, in the way that you have it. The classical Bohr planetary model, as the authors describe, is employed as an idealization of an orbital electron - that is, while we know that an electron does not really obey a circular orbit around an atomic nucleus as Bohr originally thought, it was (and is) instructive to think of it that way, in order to assign the electron any classical properties at all. Using the pulsed electric field, the experimenters find, sharply defines the ideal particle location by reducing the particle's quantum state to a classical orbit. This demonstrates that classical properties were native to the electron all along - however, so were the quantum properties that we already knew about, which supports wave-particle duality, not the locally realistic theory you espouse.
The importance of these results is to open the door to new experimentation on the electron as a classical object, other than the well known "bullet" scenario. We already have plenty of results on electron quantum mechanical properties.
Were Maeda et al to support your C field theory, you would not only have to show that the quantum mechanical electron model is wrong (i.e., that the electron truly obeys a classical orbit without the advantage of imposing microwave pulses), but that Kepler was also wrong (i.e., that planetary orbits are really circular after all). This latter conclusion follows, because a classical planetary model unified by a singular field has to hold for all orbital relations. Ironically, it would probably be easier to argue why planetary orbits are only _apparently_ elliptical than to argue why the electron orbit is only apparently dispersed.
To the idea that confirmation of the Lense-Thirring effect supports your results:
I doubt that many relativists ever expected it to turn out otherwise, because the effect is a straightforward prediction of the interaction of mass with spacetime. Equally, quantum theorists tend not to get overly excited these days at another new confirmation of quantum nonlocality. These tests are important to maintain scientific integrity; at this point, however, only negative results (a la Michelson-Morley) would be Earth-shaking.
Edwin, I offer this criticism in the interest of intellectual discourse. If we can keep it that way and refrain from personal references, I would be happy to continue. If my understanding is lacking, I would be happy to be set straight.
Tom